"My
reputation rests almost solely on how I tell a story... my individual
style. It is almost my entire stock in trade."

"Without changing the plot in the least, without changing the manuscript
in any fashion that could be detected by someone else without side-by-side
comparison, [he] has restyled the copy in hundreds of places from my style
to his style. It would be very difficult to show how he has damaged the
story, but in my opinion he has changed a story-with-a-moth-eaten-plot
amusingly told into a story-with-a-moth-eaten-plot poorly told."

". . . the cash customers won't know what is wrong, but they will have the
feeling of being let down --not quite 'first-rate Heinlein.' "

"You see? All little things, but hundreds of them. I can't prove that the
story is spoiled. Maybe it isn't, but I know that it is filled with
stylisms that never would have come out of my typewriter. You might try
the magazine version yourself without checking for the changes, but simply
checking to see if it tastes the way it did the first time you read it."

--Robert A. Heinlein in a letter to his agent

No, Robert Heinlein didn't write the above letter about STRANGER IN A
STRANGE LAND as originally published in 1961 (hereafter referred to as
SIASL and AOP respectively). Instead he was talking about the myriads of
changes an editor had made to the magazine version of THE PUPPET MASTERS a
few years earlier.

But he might as well have.

The completed manuscript of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND was 220,000 words.
The version printed by Putnams in 1961 was 160,000 words. During January
of 1961 Robert Heinlein cut 60,000 words from the novel he intended "to
break [me] loose from a straitjacket, one of my own devising. I am tired
of being known as a 'leading writer of children's books' and nothing
else." Mrs. Virginia Heinlein, in the introduction to the Uncut SIASL (ACE
books, 1991) calls this radical, albeit mostly successful, surgery "close
to an impossible task."

Of course the situation isn't totally analogous. After all, in the case of
SIASL it was RAH hisownself doing the editing --a huge improvement, no
doubt, over that earlier editor. But even He, in a letter written at the
time, seems to realize what effect the radical surgery on SIASL had on
readability:

". . .the story is now as tight as a wedge in a green stump and, short of
completely recasting it and rewriting it, I can't get it much tighter. I
have rewritten and cut drastically in the middle where Mr. Minton [at
Putnam's] felt it was slow, and I have cut every word, every sentence,
every paragraph which I felt could be spared in the beginning and the
ending. As it is, it is cut too much in parts --the style is rather 'telegraphese,'
somewhat jerky --and I could very handily use a couple of thousand words
of 'lubrication,' words put back in to make the style more graceful and
readable."

But why cut it at all, particularly to such a degree?

Quite simply because no one was willing to publish it at the original
length. It was much too "dangerous" for 1961. RAH, in order to break out
of his "straitjacket", was prepared to go to almost any lengths --while
still preserving the core story-- in order to make SIASL acceptable to a
publisher. In fact, he and Virginia had feared that no one would take a
chance on publishing SIASL at any length. His happiness and surprise were
quite apparent when his agent, Lurton Blasingame, found a publisher:

"Lurton, I do not think I have told you what a wonderful job I think you
have done in placing this [manuscript]. . ."

"When I finished it and reread it, I did not see how in hell you could
ever sell it, and neither did Ginny. But you did. Thank you."

I never particularly liked STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND. For many years I
didn't know why. I just knew that it didn't "taste" right to me.
Interestingly, such an attitude was by no means unknown among other
hardcore RAH-o'-philes --a camp I unambiguously plant my flag in. While
SIASL brought many new fans to RAH's fiction, my own unscientific
observation over the years has been that the more ardent the RAH fan the
more likely she/he was to be lukewarm, at best, about SIASL. In fact,
often the demarcation was so marked that I had taken to identifying
visitors to our PRODIGY-based RAH
coffee-klatch-cum-mutual-admiration-society as either "Primarily SIASL
fans" or "Primarily RAH fans". Does this mean that you can't be a "good"
RAH fan and a SIASL fan?

But my opinion of SIASL changed when I read the Uncut. I can't thank Mrs.
Virginia Heinlein enough for making that possible. It will still never
make my RAH top five, but she has given us back a RAH book (a treasure
beyond price-- they ain't making 'em anymore) where before, for me at
least, there was only a baffling disappointment.

You see --I love RAH's "authorial voice". Always have. And THE HUGE
MAJORITY OF THE CUTS IN SIASL/AOP were made at the expense of that
"voice". 60,000 words cut, but not in large chunks. Not at the expense of
the story itself. Oh, no. Read the two versions side-by-side and that
becomes immediately apparent. A word snipped here, a phrase compacted
there. Rarely are whole paragraphs excised. 60,000 words cut --*more than
1/4 of the total-- and he did much of it literally one word at a time.
Truly an amazing achievement.

But at the expense of the greatest "voice" SF&F has ever known.

RAH, 19 years after the fact, wrote that the huge cuts to SIASL had had
some beneficial effect:

"Then I had to cut the damned thing; sticking to that complex and
ponderous plot resulted in a [manuscript] more than twice as long as it
should have been, either commercially or dramatically."

It would appear that time had dimmed his memory somewhat. "More than twice
as long..."? Hardly. In fact, the publisher had asked him to cut another
10,000 words --based entirely on financial nervousness, not artistic
necessity-- more than the 1/4 he actually did excise. And he refused --it
was impossible to cut another word without doing violence to the story
itself.

Could it have profitably stood some cutting from it's original size of
220,000 words? Maybe. Maybe a perfect middle ground exists somewhere
around 190,000 words. We'll never know. I do know that the Uncut, on the
whole, is a much better read. A much more RAHian read.

Does being "more RAHian" equate to "better"? It does for me, but there are
those who believe that RAH is too wordy, too preachy, too...too...well,
too Heinlein. They will almost certainly prefer the AOP version.

Listed below are some examples of the cuts RAH made to SIASL that winter
of '60-61. On the left is the text As Originally Published (AOP) in 1961.
On the right is the Uncut text as RAH first wrote it. Obviously every
difference between the two versions can not be listed in this article. But
while considering the changes listed below please remember that you must
multiply them by many hundreds of times to truly appreciate the cumulative
effect.

AOP

Uncut

The
first human expedition to Mars was selected on the theory that the greatest danger to man
was man himself.

The
first human expedition to Mars was selected on the theory that the greatest danger to man
in space was man himself.

The removal
of "in space" here significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. The
AOP version is a general philosophical statement; the Uncut a hard-headed
calculation about the critical role teamwork and personal relationships
will play on a long, long journey in a tiny tin can.

...an interplanetary trip made by humans had to
be made in free-fall orbits--from Terra to Mars, two hundred-fifty-eight
Terran days, the same for return, plus four hundred fifty-five days waiting
at Mars while the planets crawled back into positions for the return orbit.

...any interplanetary trip made by humans
necessarily had to be made in weary free-fall orbits, doubly tangent
semi-ellipses--from Terra to Mars, two hundred-fifty-eight days, the same
for the return journey, plus four hundred fifty-five days waiting at Mars
while the two planets crawled slowly back into relative positions which would
permit shaping the doubly-tangent orbit--a total of almost three Earth
years.

This one is a
good argument for the "middle-ground" theory. While on the whole I prefer
the Uncut version of this passage, a solid case can be made for trimming
parts of it. Perhaps the removal of the phrase containing the second
"doubly-tangent" reference.

The institute
offered to return its one dollar fee.

The institute stiffly offered to return its one dollar fee.

One little
word --"stiffly"-- but what a difference! Of course the institute was
stiff about offering to return their nominal fee --they did so to rub the
mission managers' nose in the fact of who was helping who and on what
terms. Yer damn right they did it "stiffly"...and that's just the way RAH
would have described it.

Captain
Michael Brant, M.S., Cmdr. D.F. Reserve, pilot and veteran at thirty of the Moon run, had
an inside track at the institute, someone who looked up for him names of single female
volunteers who might (with him) complete a crew, then paired his name with these to run
problems through the machines to determine whether a combination would be acceptable. This
resulted in his jetting to Australia and proposing marriage to Doctor Winifred Coburn, a
spinster nine years his senior.

Captain
Michael Brant, M.S., Cmdr. D.F. Reserve, pilot (unlimited license), and veteran at thirty
of the Moon run, seems to have had an inside track at the Institute, someone who was
willing to look up for him the names of single female volunteers who might (with him)
complete a crew, and then pair his name with these to run trial problems through the
machines to determine whether or not a possible combination would be acceptable. This
would account for his action in jetting to Australia and proposing marriage to Doctor
Winifred Coburn, a horse-faced spinster semantician nine years his senior. The Carlsbad
Archives pictured her with an expression of quiet good humor but otherwise lacking in
attractiveness. Or Brant may have acted without inside information, solely through that
trait of intuitive audacity necessary to command an exploration.

The early
parts of this passage are a very good example of the hoops RAH jumped
through to cut out every possible word --and that not every one of the
60,000 he cut were at the expense of his voice. "Someone who was willing
to look up for him" in the Uncut becomes "Someone who looked up for him"
in the AOP. Do I find that kind of change objectionable? Nope. But there
are much more egregious indignities inflicted later on. What started
literary life as "horse-faced spinster semantician" is reduced to just
"spinster". RAH was known for not using physical descriptions unless they
served a specific purpose. Here it most definitely did--that love at first
sight was probably not Captain Brant's motivation. "Carlsbad Archives" is
the kind of casual, cultural of-course-you-know-what-I'm-talking-about
that help make RAH's works so believable. The last sentence, about Brant's
"intuitive audacity", strikes me as 180 proof Old Heinlein.

"Hold
it," Harshaw said hastily. "Masculine speech forms do include the feminine, when
you are speaking in general --but not when you are talking about a particular
person."

"Eh? You say that when you want
to ask a favor, Mike. What is it?"

"Hold
it," Harshaw said hastily. "The trouble is with the English language, not with
you. Masculine speech forms do include the feminine, when you are speaking in general--but
not when you are talking about a particular person."

"Eh? You usually say that when you want to ask a favor, Mike.
What is it this time? Speak up."

Jubal Harshaw,
Unbound! Jubal is a wordy, folksy kind of guy. Remember, this is a
combination of author/lawyer we're talking about. The AOP versions of
Jubal's speech patterns show evidence of the "telegraphese" RAH mentions
in a letter to his agent. The Uncut versions are much more natural to the
ear, and much more likely to be the way Jubal actually talks. Jubal was
always a great character, but he didn't come fully alive for me until I
read the Uncut.

"The box did not simply vanish. The process lasted
some fraction of a second. From where I am sitting it appeared to shrink, as if it were
disappearing into the distance.

"Anne,
were you watching?"

"Yes."

"What did you see?"

"The box did not simply vanish The process was not
quite instantaneous, but lasted some measurable fraction of a second. From where I am
sitting it appeared to shrink very, very rapidly, as if it were disappearing into the far
distance.

The Uncut
seems a more likely description, particularly from someone who has been
intensely trained to describe exactly what she sees. If there's a fault
here it exists in both versions --Anne, as a Fair Witness, would be
unlikely to use such a subjective phrase as "as if it were disappearing
into the far distance." On the other hand, since she was startled silly I
guess we can forgive her slight lapse!

"One
of them is going to land...and it's got that Paddy-wagon look. Oh, damn, I thought they
would parley."

"You wanted this,
Boss?"

"I wanted to sneer at it. Larry, let this be a
lesson: never trust machinery more complicated than a knife and fork."

"One
of them is certainly going to land...and it's got that Paddy-wagon look to it, all right.
Oh, damn, I had thought they would parley first."

"You wanted this, Boss?"

"I just wanted to sneer at it and see if it sneered
back. Larry, let this be a lesson to us: never trust any machinery more complicated than a
knife and fork.

JH, Unbound
--The Sequel!

Is there any doubt in your mind which column tastes more like the prose of
Robert A. Heinlein? Can there really be any doubt? Not for me.

I do not argue that authors would be better without editing. I do argue
that any editing that maims the one thing that in the end separates one
author from another, his voice, should not be forced upon him. After all,
RAH was known to be very generous in helping other authors with ideas. He
could have given waldos or waterbeds to another author--but the resulting
story would not have been Heinlein. It takes more than cheese to make a
tasty cheesecake.

I started with RAH calling his voice "almost my entire stock in trade." I
would not got so far in denigrating the other talents of the first
Grandmaster. But it was his greatest gift, and this Uncut STRANGER IN A
STRANGE LAND has finally come home to familiar, beloved, territory.

The Heinlein
Society was founded by Virginia Heinlein on behalf of her husband, science
fiction author Robert Anson Heinlein, to "pay forward" the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein to future generations of "Heinlein's Children."